I am fascinated by the recent move by the NIH to require all graduate students and postdoctoral researchers funded by grants from the NIH (or funded by their PI's NIH grant) to explicitly outline their short- and long-term learning objectives in what is known as an "Individual Development Plan" or "IDP". These IDPs are then shared with both the NIH and with the PI so that the self-imposed learning goals are transparent across all those levels. They can also be discussed freely at any point, and the IDP is considered a "living document" - revised continually to reflect the student's and PI's changing goals in the world of research and professional development. Outwardly, I think it's a great idea. But does it really work to eliminate the common problems of disconnect between PI and grad student? Does it really help grad students an post docs develop skills for the job market? Does it help student keep goals in sight and matriculate faster or with less incident?

This is something I'll also bring up in the forum, as I am truly interested in this group's feedback about these "IDPs". Do they work? Time will tell, and I hope there are educational researchers getting in on the ground floor with this. If not, maybe I should fill that niche :) My ideas for understanding if these IDPs really work are endless!

I have heard scattered stories of some secondary education institutions doing away with traditional letter grades in order to reduce a factor of that "strategic" learning phenomenon that was discussed this week. I know first-hand that this can help, but is this really a great thing to do?

When I was an undergrad, I took a risk and signed up for a course "Spectral Analysis in Organic Chemistry." I had done really well in Organic Chemistry and really enjoyed learning how to read spectra from NMR, IR, and mass spec experiments. A few weeks into this advanced spectral class, I realized I had gone in way over my head, and as a knee-jerk reaction to this, I approached the instructor with course drop forms. He told me he was disappointed that I wanted to drop, since I was the only bio-interested students in the course and one of only two women. He further said that all students int he class were guaranteed at B grade. That was all the motivation I needed to stay in the class. It was very difficult for me, but I got a lot out of the in-class discussions and working through the assignments to the best of my (albeit awful) abilities. I don't regret sticking with that class, and it was even fun at times.

This is just a little example of my own personal background, but it virtually eliminated that strategic learning push that I had been feeling. Now, I was learning for fun and making whatever connections I could between the subject matter and my studies in many other subjects.

However, is eliminating letter grades a good thing? Does it do away with a vital component of that feedback an instructor gives his/her student?